People Living in Environments that Suit them would Definitely Save the Environment - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14825264
@JohnRawls
You disagree with me to the point of calling me delusional and then you go on to explain how the process is totally political and not racial. :?:
What am I delusional about? Is this process based upon voting patterns or race? Race may be a coincidence in voting patterns, but you have shown nothing to demonstrate race is the reason, because it isn't.
#14825269
One Degree wrote:@JohnRawls
You disagree with me to the point of calling me delusional and then you go on to explain how the process is totally political and not racial. :?:
What am I delusional about? Is this process based upon voting patterns or race? Race may be a coincidence in voting patterns, but you have shown nothing to demonstrate race is the reason, because it isn't.


Okay, let me put it in terms you can understand. (Although i gave you an imaginary example which you can expand to anything honestly)

This is straight lines out of R party memos:

“The rationale was straightforward,” the report says.“Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”


Those are some extracts from a GOP memo about gerrymandering. Control of policymaking expands and is used for voter suppression. (Like stricter ID laws in states etc)

If you want a longer analysis then you can read this:

(Note: Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of this. Rs just were more sucessful at rigging the system and suppressing the vote lately. The situation changes from decade to decade regarding this.)

This is a D representative whining about the process: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/GAEdata/tmy ... ls-TMY.PDF
#14825271
@JohnRawls
We were discussing gerrymandering which is simply the redrawing on lines on a map based upon the voting patterns of small geographic areas. There is absolutely no need to know the race of the voters. It does not matter. Blacks are hurt by this only because they vote Democratic, which would be silly to complain about since the whole purpose of gerrymandering by both parties is to give their side an advantage.
Voter suppression is a separate issue.
Bringing race into gerrymandering serves no purpose because it has no significance other than how the area the live in votes. This is totally political and not racial. This is simply Democrats, once again, throwing out the race card when race has no primary significance to the issue.
All anyone has to do is set down to redraw the lines themselves, and they will immediately see they have no need to know the race of the voters.
#14825273
One Degree wrote:@JohnRawls
We were discussing gerrymandering which is simply the redrawing on lines on a map based upon the voting patterns of small geographic areas. There is absolutely no need to know the race of the voters. It does not matter. Blacks are hurt by this only because they vote Democratic, which would be silly to complain about since the whole purpose of gerrymandering by both parties is to give their side an advantage.
Voter suppression is a separate issue.
Bringing race into gerrymandering serves no purpose because it has no significance other than how the area the live in votes. This is totally political and not racial. This is simply Democrats, once again, throwing out the race card when race has no primary significance to the issue.
All anyone has to do is set down to redraw the lines themselves, and they will immediately see they have no need to know the race of the voters.


But you just mentioned that a large majority of the black voters vote democrat. How does that not cause a significant cognitive dissonance for you when you say that " When lines are redrawn then the party doesn't need to know the race ".

You are trying to imply that not all blacks vote democrat. Well not all whites or x group vote Republican also obviously. But i gave you concrete examples how gerrymandering can be used in a racist way:

1) Redrawing the lines according to distribution of the population. (Different groups in different districts)
2) Stacking districts to suit your needs for future decisions.
3) Solidifying your policymaking process to make it easier to do 1 and 2 later again. (Voter supression etc, just to give an example)

I am starting to feel, like i am hitting a brick wall...

I am not a person who calls many things racist. I was for Donald Trump etc. I am against any broadening of definition of racism but Racism in itself does not mean only slavery. This creates segregation like rules for minority groups in the political process, which is racism. This is basically White only or Black only washrooms or elevators just in politics.
#14825275
@JohnRawls
I also feel like I am hitting a brick wall. Please tell me why anyone, from either party, would care what race a voter was when redrawing district lines. It is totally insignificant and is only a coincidence based upon party loyalty of racial groups. Democrats use the race card for everything because it is effective and people believe it without thoughtful analysis.
The only thing that matters in gerrymandering is voter patterns in small geographic areas. The racial makeup of these areas are of no importance. Zilch! Zero! Even knowing the information would be more of a detriment than a benefit, because it might detract from your main purpose.
I can just see a politician saying, "oh we can't draw the line there because they are Black. Yes, they all voted for me, but they are Black." Not even our politicians are that stupid. They don't give a shit what race you are, only how you vote.

Edit: Again, I don't deny the impact of Black voters has been decreased by gerrymandering, but it was a side effect, not a goal. If they basically voted republican, then the last gerrymandering would have benefited them rather than hindering them. It was political affiliation and not race that mattered.
#14825285
Hong Wu wrote:I'm not going to waste any time finding sources for things everyone knows are true when I know they'll be attacked anyway. Arguments about sources don't have a good track record against reality. And environmentalist catastrophes about global warming still haven't materialized.

It's silly to be racist if you're not going to be one of those racists that meticulously backs up everything they say. Now you just look like someone too lazy to do research because they don't want to be proven wrong by what they find.
#14825292
@One Degree
The US has anonymous/ secret ballots so you don't actually know who voted which way. Politicians use proxies like age, race and income bracket to make educated guesses about who voted for them. If it turns out blacks rarely vote republican then that party has an incentive to suppress and manipulate black voters.
#14825305
AFAIK wrote:@One Degree
The US has anonymous/ secret ballots so you don't actually know who voted which way. Politicians use proxies like age, race and income bracket to make educated guesses about who voted for them. If it turns out blacks rarely vote republican then that party has an incentive to suppress and manipulate black voters.

I agree, but this is all due to their politics and not with their race. To call gerrjmandering racist is deliberately misleading and about as unethical as you can be in our society.
Edit: like you said, they don't even know their race.
Edit 2: Are Democrats also racist, in your opinion, for doing the exact same thing to the white race? I mean their whole argument is they want minorities to have more voting power compared to whites than is currently the case.
#14825320
I don't think that gerrymandering is motivated by race per se... Race is just a convenient grouping of a class that tends to vote one way and tends to live in a homogeneous area. If support of a baseball team were as predictable, it would be gerrymandered that way as well. Both sides will do whatever they can to get the most predicted number of votes.

It isn't because one side hates green skinned people, it is just that green skinned people are a convenient grouping geologically, so that is what they go for or try to minimize.
#14825328
I also feel like I am hitting a brick wall. Please tell me why anyone, from either party, would care what race a voter was when redrawing district lines.


You answered your question many times. Neither party knows how a particular person voted. Only general geographic areas. In my state zip codes. The race and ethnictiy can be used to draw the absurdly convoluted districts we see today. Not by zip code but by distinct racial boundries.

Further.

The courts have again and again struck down racially discriminatory election rules. They have ruled against polls closing early in predominately black areas. You are being needlessly hard headed. I am a lifelong republican and ashamed at the party's racist shenanigans.
#14825348
Drlee wrote:You answered your question many times. Neither party knows how a particular person voted. Only general geographic areas. In my state zip codes. The race and ethnictiy can be used to draw the absurdly convoluted districts we see today. Not by zip code but by distinct racial boundries.

Further.

The courts have again and again struck down racially discriminatory election rules. They have ruled against polls closing early in predominately black areas. You are being needlessly hard headed. I am a lifelong republican and ashamed at the party's racist shenanigans.


I am not trying to be hard headed. I am very tired of people accepting things as facts that obviously are not facts. For an act to be racist, it must be the result of race determining the act. Gerrymandering is determined by voting patterns and not race. Calling it racist is wrong. There is no way it fits the definition of racism. You simply throw in other things that might be racist to distract from the real discussion.
Again, based upon your reasoning are only Republicans guilty of racism in gerrymandering or are Democrats also?
#14825363
@One Degree it's only not racially motivated if you think that race is a biological characteristic. If we operate under the assumption that race is actually a cultural association, then any act that suppresses the social goals of any particular race can be seen as racist if indeed the target is a particular race. So trying to get people to not vote Democrat is not racist. Targeting black people because they support Democrats is racist.

On the other hand if a particular race's social goals are racist and you try to suppress those racist goals that would be the exception to the rule. So suppressing white racists is not racist because suppressing racism is not racist. Likewise the other way if there was a black hate group. Then the trick is not to call something racist just because you disagree with it, which I know can happen sometimes in this modern world.
#14825367
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:@One Degree it's only not racially motivated if you think that race is a biological characteristic. If we operate under the assumption that race is actually a cultural association, then any act that suppresses the social goals of any particular race can be seen as racist if indeed the target is a particular race. So trying to get people to not vote Democrat is not racist. Targeting black people because they support Democrats is racist.

On the other hand if a particular race's social goals are racist and you try to suppress those racist goals that would be the exception to the rule. So suppressing white racists is not racist because suppressing racism is not racist. Likewise the other way if there was a black hate group. Then the trick is not to call something racist just because you disagree with it, which I know can happen sometimes in this modern world.


No personal offense intended, but this is simply liberal double talk that is totally meaningless. It simply tries to justify what it has decided is right even though it is not. Targeting any group because of their race is racist. Saying it does not apply to Democrats because they are the 'good guys' is not much of an argument.
Gerrymandering does not target any group according to their race or culture. If you insist upon calling it racist then Democrats must also be racist. What you are arguing is a double standard.
#14825373
The courts ruled it as racial gerrymandering, not simple gerrymandering. Furthermore I don't support any form of gerrymandering myself, as I think overall when gerrymandering is not allowed the confidence in the system goes up which brings more people in on the voting process. Right now a lot of people black and white feel their vote doesn't matter because frankly it wouldn't in a lot of (if not most) cases.

I was simply pointing out where I agreed with your point that suppressing social goals is not racist: in the specific case where those social goals are racist themselves. Just have to be careful that you actually care about racism and not just racism from the other side (see the second paragraph I wrote).
#14825377
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:The courts ruled it as racial gerrymandering, not simple gerrymandering. Furthermore I don't support any form of gerrymandering myself, as I think overall when gerrymandering is not allowed the confidence in the system goes up which brings more people in on the voting process. Right now a lot of people black and white feel their vote doesn't matter because frankly it wouldn't in a lot of (if not most) cases.

I was simply pointing out where I agreed with your point that suppressing social goals is not racist: in the specific case where those social goals are racist themselves. Just have to be careful that you actually care about racism and not just racism from the other side (see the second paragraph I wrote).


I do apologize because I did intend to note that and then forgot. I also believe the boundaries should be permanent and standardized. I think it is a stupid waste of time and a whole lot of money. If they were permanent then groups, if felt their power was too centralized, might encourage moving to other areas.
If they do that now, the boundaries are simply redrawn eventually. So I understand the problem, but resent people calling things racist that are not.

Edit: As far as Democrats being guilty of racism also, please consider that based upon where minorities live, you would end up with pie pieces originating in the city and extending out into the countryside. This would result in both groups having influence in areas that they do not actually live in or share values with. This, in my opinion, is inherently unfair to all groups when it comes to their representatives representing their interest. It seems superior, to me, to know that your representative actually represents your communities values. Once again, this is destruction of the local community by giving it borders that do not actually reflect any community. People who want centralized control support such concepts.
#14825526
I like the OP title, but hate the OP.

Living in comfortable environments that you accept and thrive in IS a positive step in trying not to go extinct. Agreed. But the OPs forced link between color-coded race and the various microclimates of the Earth isn't very strong because of all the migrations of the last few millennia.

Yes, light-skinned people are more likely to get skin cancer in sunny climes. Yes, certain types of skin don't acclimatize well to the dry indoor air of heated northern houses. But these things are related to technology (heated houses) and lifestyle choices (not spending enough time outside to tan regularly).

Saudis have been living on a hot peninsula for thousands of years and are no longer willing and able to tolerate heat. Many Canadians and Americans have been living in sub-polar, snow-covered regions for many thousands of years (if they migrated from Germany, Poland, or Russia) but still stay indoors all winter and get depressed.

Accepting your natural environment is what people WITHOUT technology do. And they are happier and more sustainable for it.
#14825542
One Degree wrote:Edit: As far as Democrats being guilty of racism also, please consider that based upon where minorities live, you would end up with pie pieces originating in the city and extending out into the countryside. This would result in both groups having influence in areas that they do not actually live in or share values with. This, in my opinion, is inherently unfair to all groups when it comes to their representatives representing their interest. It seems superior, to me, to know that your representative actually represents your communities values. Once again, this is destruction of the local community by giving it borders that do not actually reflect any community. People who want centralized control support such concepts.

I totally agree with this. Losing the gerrymandering would allow black districts to be controlled by black people. Too long has it been used to give whites a better chance to win local districts. I think we would both agree that local control is important. So long as whites and blacks are segregated by the subtle racism that comes with real estate, blacks should get control of their districts because we know that whites will always manage to control theirs and then some.

We were going in a similar direction with the dies[…]

Trump Takes on NFL

Trump is absolutely hysterical. Now we'll have a […]

The worse atrocity? Comparing the two. Japanese […]

But you're leaving out some of the right wingers i[…]